If I have worked hard and been careful with my money throughout my working life, and if I have saved and invested in my own home, then when I become old and frail or struck down by Alzheimer's, the state will expect me to sell my house to pay for long-term residential care. But if I have been idle and squandered my money, and if I have not planned for the future but lived for the present, then the state will happily pay in full for my long-term care.You refer to the estimated pounds 200m a year that the proposed scheme may cost. What you ignore is that a pensioner living in their own home who has paid off their mortgage before retirement will not be a burden on the state beyond their basic pension. But the pensioner still renting their home will need the state to pay housing costs for perhaps 20 or 30 years of healthy retirement. This represents a far higher burden on the taxpayer than that resulting from Stephen Dorrell's proposals.MARCUS YOUNGEly, CambridgeshireSir: Thank you for your leading article. What a relief! My reaction to Mr Dorrell's plans had prompted the terrible thought, "If I am the only one who thinks that, am I already marching towards dementia?"My house is my insurance against future need My children have a clear choice. Either they can help to look after me if I become unable to do it for myself and inherit their reward, or I can pay someone else to do it and leave little behind. For a government supposed to believe in family values, encouraging them to opt out of family responsibilities and also to have expectations of something for nothing, seems a bit rich.BETTY PERRYChelmsford, Essex.

Sir: Your supplement on primary school league tables was illuminating. Who would have thought that among Bolton schools, Top-of-the-Brow would have been beaten by Plodder Lane? JONATHAN RIPLEY Tonbridge, Kent. Sir: How exquisitely timed your leading article "The main parties need a deeper shade of green" is (12 March). On your news pages you report a heavy defeat for a backbench amendment to the Finance Bill, an amendment that would have - in the words of former Chancellor Norman Lamont in his 1993 Budget speech - removed "an anomaly which makes a nonsense of any attempt to use the tax system to assist the environment".

The anomaly in question is the patent absurdity of charging VAT on energy conservation materials at 17.5 per cent whilst levying it at 8 per cent on energy consumption. What is so depressing is that both Conservative and Labour front benches colluded to stop this distortion being rectified. ANDREW WARRENDirector, Association for the Conservation of EnergyLondon N1. Sir: Some facts about the Attlee family show a rather different picture from that given by Kate Watson-Smyth ("Attlee was really a Tory, says his daughter-in-law", 7 March) Clement Attlee's father had been a Liberal supporter. Clem was introduced to socialism by his brother Tom, who had preceded him to the East End of London. The two brothers worked together there from 1907 and had the sympathy of their sisters, Mary and Margaret. Tom was a life-long member of the Labour Party; his son Christopher stood as a Labour candidate in 1951, 1955 and 1959 and his granddaughter Catherine in 1992 Other members of the family have been Labour councillors Clem was not a lone socialist in the family. Nor, in view of his government's record or of his support, for instance, of the International Brigade in Spain, could it possibly be argued credibly that he was "secretly a Tory".PEGGY ATTLEELondon NW3. Sir: Polly Toynbee's article about digital terrestrial television and the BBC ("A naive fish in very dangerous waters." 10 March) was full of misconceptions Here are four 1.